Blackhand293 & RobbyPants asked: How do we know this topic is really outside of the scope of science?

Answer: Please see my response to Mathilda. There is no way to apply the scientific method to this phenomenon.

Chas mentioned: Argument from ignorance, unsubstantiated assumptions, and false dichotomy (physical reality could be no other way as a third option)

Answer: The argument from ignorance states: "we don't know, hence god". I'm stating "we don't know, hence maybe god, maybe nothing". Regarding unsubstantiated assumptions, I assume you mean my assertion that the topic is outside the scope of science, in which case, please check out my reply to Mathilda. As for false dichotomy, I believe here there are only two choices (which again returns to the philosophical debate between Humeans and Necessitarians). Your third option doesn't pertain to the actual question. Regardless of if the many worlds theory is true, or if it's not (i.e if, like you said, there could be no other way), any type of reality requires laws. It's intrinsic to existence and tangibility. The question here is what, if anything, causes that.

CJlr mentioned: It’s an example of infinite regress (ie. turtles all the way down)

Answer: The scientific method, and more basically human rationale, is subject to limitation. If you will: along the path of regress, whether it’s infinite or not, human beings have a point which they cannot go beyond. That point, I’ll argue, is the extant of our senses. Human knowledge begins by sensation, whether direct (like seeing or touching), or indirect (like via a microscope or any other instrument). Particle physics is the scientific subject where we try to reach our utmost limits of perception on the micro level. Beyond what we are capable of sensing, infinity or non-infinity are irrelevant because everything after that point is hypothetical. So my point here is that science has an epistemic limitation. Within the bounds of that limitation, we observe phenomenon that cannot be explained by anything else we sense. I’m talking about, for example, a single photon. What causes it to travel through a vacuum at a consistent speed? Moreover, what causes any given photon do the same? If we can one day discover a more fundamental set of particles which explains this phenomenon, then we could then ask the same questions about them. As I’ve stated before, any type of reality requires laws the source of which is not a scientific inquiry.

Stevil argued: Any gap, permanent or temporary, is invalid to fill with god.

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr. Gaps under the purview of science pertain to things that can be explained naturally which is why filling them with God would be fallacious. The gap I am referring to, however, can never have a natural explanation. It’s not subject to the scientific method, and thus we can posit only possibilities that are (at the risk of sounding redundant) untestable scientifically. God, or some intangible cause, can be suggested for this gap without it being a logical fallicy.

Taqiyya argued: Anything, even primates exiting his/her posterior, could be ascribed as the cause

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr. To say the cause could be a thing that exists, that we have not sensed yet, would only beg the question. If it exists in this universe, if it’s matter/energy, capable of being sensed, then it would be subject to laws and we could then study it, and then question the laws pertaining its nature.

Vosur asked: How does saying the cause of uniformity being God explain anything?

Answer: It depends on what type of answer you’re looking for. Scientifically, it explains nothing. That’s my assertion all along – it’s not a scientific inquiry to begin with. I find it comical that the New Atheists claim that science has made the concept of god obsolete. Leaving aside discussion pertaining to S.J. Gould’s NOMA (because that pertains more to religion and concepts that arise from it) science has no say in the existence of a creator when you look from the perspective I’m proposing. So then what does what I’m saying explain? Science and human rationale is limited, it cannot explain the phenomena of uniformity in nature, there perhaps may be something super-natural which causes it.

TheMrBillShow argues: If something is not detectable by science then it does not exist.

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr and also my answer to Mathilda. We have an observable phenomenon – uniformity - and we cannot explain it scientifically. You can claim then (by adopting the Humean position) that uniformity simply exists and has no cause. That’s fine, but we can’t say for sure it’s correct. Maybe things just exist the way they do, maybe there is some cause outside of our epistemic boundary.

(16-04-2014 07:29 PM)lots2learn Wrote: I was interested in knowing what folks thought about this idea: The uniformity in nature (or the laws of the universe) is an observable phenomenon who's cause is not a scientific subject.

Wait. What? If it is observable then it is a topic for investigation (investigation = scientific method). You keep saying things like "requires laws the source of which is not a scientific inquiry." EVERYTHING IS OPEN TO SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY, or to put it another way MANY OF US CHOOSE TO LOOK FOR ANSWERS INSTEAD OF THROWING OUR HANDS UP IN THE AIR, FALLING TO OUR KNEES AND MAKING SHIT UP.

Setting arbitrary limits to what we may know in the future is rather short sighted don't you think? I find this to be a typical ruse of people wanting to stick a god in there somewhere. "We don't know, therefore God" is such a tired proposition no matter how cleverly it is stated or how it is spun.

(16-04-2014 07:29 PM)lots2learn Wrote: God, or some intangible cause, can be suggested for this gap without it being a logical fallicy.

You can suggest the proverbial teapot around the sun argument all you like but all that does is make the argument unworthy of serious consideration. But, please, knock yourself out. Postulate away, what else you got?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce

Is it ultimately to reach the conclusion of a personal deity that is interested and involved in the activities of humans? If that is your ultimate goal, you will be unsuccessful, as you will not be able to offer any type of convincing evidence of this.

Is it really simply to suggest that a deity of some sort might be the ultimate cause of the existence of the universe? If so, I will state that in this matter I label myself agnostic. At this point I don't subscribe to that idea because I don't see any evidence or need to inject it to explain the universe as it exists. Could it be so? I suppose. But if it is ultimately unknowable, as you seem to suggest, and as a result this deity itself is unknowable, then what's the point. We can argue and debate - you'll have your opinion and I'll have mine. And?

eta: I'll also say that if a deity is the cause, it seems a pretty inefficient way for a sentient (and I'm assuming you'd think pretty powerful) supernatural being to get things rolling.

Meanwhile we can study the workings of the universe and continue to advance human knowledge, and who knows what we'll know 1000 years from now.

(16-04-2014 07:29 PM)lots2learn Wrote: Conclusion: the classical “god of the gaps” is an irrelevant discourse because there is in actuality a permanent gap outside the reach of science.

I just reread your post and I come to a different conclusion. The "permanent gap" you speak of translates to "we don't know" and it isn't necessarily permanent either. Filling that with "therefore god" is the god of the gaps fallacy so it's certainly not irrelevant. I'm amazed at science and the methods that we have devised to determine conclusive facts about things that happened billions of years ago. This give me tremendous hope and confidence that the gap will one day be filled with knowledge. And right now there isn't one spec of evidence to make me believe that a deity will have anything to do with what that knowledge will turn out to be.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Blackhand293 & RobbyPants asked: How do we know this topic is really outside of the scope of science?

Answer: Please see my response to Mathilda. There is no way to apply the scientific method to this phenomenon.

[citation needed]
Asserting it is outside of science does not make it so.

(18-04-2014 06:17 AM)lots2learn Wrote: Chas mentioned: Argument from ignorance, unsubstantiated assumptions, and false dichotomy (physical reality could be no other way as a third option)

Answer: The argument from ignorance states: "we don't know, hence god". I'm stating "we don't know, hence maybe god, maybe nothing". Regarding unsubstantiated assumptions, I assume you mean my assertion that the topic is outside the scope of science, in which case, please check out my reply to Mathilda. As for false dichotomy, I believe here there are only two choices (which again returns to the philosophical debate between Humeans and Necessitarians). Your third option doesn't pertain to the actual question. Regardless of if the many worlds theory is true, or if it's not (i.e if, like you said, there could be no other way), any type of reality requires laws. It's intrinsic to existence and tangibility. The question here is what, if anything, causes that.

Excluding science on the basis that you don't want it there, and then limiting it to only two choices is the essence of the false dichotomy

Answer: The scientific method, and more basically human rationale, is subject to limitation. If you will: along the path of regress, whether it’s infinite or not, human beings have a point which they cannot go beyond. That point, I’ll argue, is the extant of our senses. Human knowledge begins by sensation, whether direct (like seeing or touching), or indirect (like via a microscope or any other instrument). Particle physics is the scientific subject where we try to reach our utmost limits of perception on the micro level. Beyond what we are capable of sensing, infinity or non-infinity are irrelevant because everything after that point is hypothetical. So my point here is that science has an epistemic limitation. Within the bounds of that limitation, we observe phenomenon that cannot be explained by anything else we sense. I’m talking about, for example, a single photon. What causes it to travel through a vacuum at a consistent speed? Moreover, what causes any given photon do the same? If we can one day discover a more fundamental set of particles which explains this phenomenon, then we could then ask the same questions about them. As I’ve stated before, any type of reality requires laws the source of which is not a scientific inquiry.

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr. Gaps under the purview of science pertain to things that can be explained naturally which is why filling them with God would be fallacious. The gap I am referring to, however, can never have a natural explanation. It’s not subject to the scientific method, and thus we can posit only possibilities that are (at the risk of sounding redundant) untestable scientifically. God, or some intangible cause, can be suggested for this gap without it being a logical fallacy.

Answer: It depends on what type of answer you’re looking for. Scientifically, it explains nothing. That’s my assertion all along – it’s not a scientific inquiry to begin with. I find it comical that the New Atheists claim that science has made the concept of god obsolete. Leaving aside discussion pertaining to S.J. Gould’s NOMA (because that pertains more to religion and concepts that arise from it) science has no say in the existence of a creator when you look from the perspective I’m proposing. So then what does what I’m saying explain? Science and human rationale is limited, it cannot explain the phenomena of uniformity in nature, there perhaps may be something super-natural which causes it.

TheMrBillShow argues: If something is not detectable by science then it does not exist.

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr and also my answer to Mathilda. We have an observable phenomenon – uniformity - and we cannot explain it scientifically. You can claim then (by adopting the Humean position) that uniformity simply exists and has no cause. That’s fine, but we can’t say for sure it’s correct. Maybe things just exist the way they do, maybe there is some cause outside of our epistemic boundary.

GOD OF THE GAPS!

Dear Lots2learn

You are pedaling the fundamentalist claim that gawd ordered the universe as is written in genesis, but coaching it in vague language so as to appear smart. You do not.

You provide a second option but limit it to we don't know and will never know, when questioned you fall back on gawd did it.

Provide a well reasoned argument, with evidence for the claims and you may be taken seriously.

Build you entire case on logical fallacies, shift the burden of proof, move the goal posts and use argumento ex crulo and you will be mocked mercilessly.

The requirement of evidence to back your claim does not disappear because it hurts your feelings, reality does not care about your feefees.

(18-04-2014 04:41 AM)lots2learn Wrote: Science and human rationale is limited, it cannot explain the phenomena of uniformity in nature, there perhaps may be something super-natural which causes it.

What is this catch phrase you use - "uniformity in nature"? I know they used it quite a bit in the 16th century but, there has been much discovered since then. It might be a good idea to try and keep up.

Around the 16th century, much of what was thought to be "all which is known" has since been observed to be quite incorrect. Technologies have been developed to assist science to reach further in obtaining data and measuring it with greater and greater accuracy. The accuracy with which we measure and establish predictors and consequences has increased vastly, helping theoretical ideas to be realized more substantially.
Science sets out to explain the natural world... the world which we inhabit.

***
If you or anyone wants to explain some supernatural world go right ahead. No one's stopping you. Your faith should be enough as long as you stay there and live in that supernatural world. Please stay in your supernatural world, where surely you must be able to communicate telepathically.

No, you can't have our computers and our internet; go away.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

Answer: The scientific method, and more basically human rationale, is subject to limitation. If you will: along the path of regress, whether it’s infinite or not, human beings have a point which they cannot go beyond.

That's quite an assertion. Can you substantiate it?

(18-04-2014 06:17 AM)lots2learn Wrote: That point, I’ll argue, is the extant of our senses. Human knowledge begins by sensation, whether direct (like seeing or touching), or indirect (like via a microscope or any other instrument). Particle physics is the scientific subject where we try to reach our utmost limits of perception on the micro level. Beyond what we are capable of sensing, infinity or non-infinity are irrelevant because everything after that point is hypothetical. So my point here is that science has an epistemic limitation.

What are "our senses"? I can't see spin waves. And they certainly exist.

The magic of science is that that limit changes with time.

Do you have special knowledge of where that limit will be in the future? That's quite an assertion, too.

(18-04-2014 06:17 AM)lots2learn Wrote: Within the bounds of that limitation, we observe phenomenon that cannot be explained by anything else we sense. I’m talking about, for example, a single photon. What causes it to travel through a vacuum at a consistent speed? Moreover, what causes any given photon do the same? If we can one day discover a more fundamental set of particles which explains this phenomenon, then we could then ask the same questions about them. As I’ve stated before, any type of reality requires laws the source of which is not a scientific inquiry.

And simply declaring there to be a certain point beyond which investigation is not possible and will never be possible is not valid.

Likewise, simply declaring that whatever "exists" (an incoherent use of the word) "beyond" (an incoherent use of the word) that limit to be "god" is so utterly meaningless that I entirely fail to see why anyone would bother.

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr. Gaps under the purview of science pertain to things that can be explained naturally which is why filling them with God would be fallacious. The gap I am referring to, however, can never have a natural explanation. It’s not subject to the scientific method, and thus we can posit only possibilities that are (at the risk of sounding redundant) untestable scientifically. God, or some intangible cause, can be suggested for this gap without it being a logical fallicy.

It's not fallacious, it's just meaningless.

If - as, you claim, by definition - knowledge under such conditions is necessarily impossible, then the word "god", should one choose to apply it, is just as meaningless. It's a placeholder for the idea of unknowable.

What the hell's the point of that when we already have the word "unknowable"? To save three syllables?

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr. To say the cause could be a thing that exists, that we have not sensed yet, would only beg the question. If it exists in this universe, if it’s matter/energy, capable of being sensed, then it would be subject to laws and we could then study it, and then question the laws pertaining its nature.

(18-04-2014 06:17 AM)lots2learn Wrote: Leaving aside discussion pertaining to S.J. Gould’s NOMA (because that pertains more to religion and concepts that arise from it) science has no say in the existence of a creator when you look from the perspective I’m proposing. So then what does what I’m saying explain? Science and human rationale is limited, it cannot explain the phenomena of uniformity in nature, there perhaps may be something super-natural which causes it.

Except by the your provided parameters, nothing about "God" may be known. By definition. So what's the point?

(18-04-2014 06:17 AM)lots2learn Wrote: TheMrBillShow argues: If something is not detectable by science then it does not exist.

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr and also my answer to Mathilda. We have an observable phenomenon – uniformity - and we cannot explain it scientifically.

You can't just assert that.

Such a statement is predicated on knowledge the likes of which is as "inherently" unknowable as the answers to the very question you're asking. "I don't know, therefore I don't know not, therefore I do" reasoning at its finest.

(18-04-2014 06:17 AM)lots2learn Wrote: You can claim then (by adopting the Humean position) that uniformity simply exists and has no cause. That’s fine, but we can’t say for sure it’s correct. Maybe things just exist the way they do, maybe there is some cause outside of our epistemic boundary.

AND MAYBE THE CAUSE IS GOD AND YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT THEREFORE GAAAAAAAAAAWD TROLOLOLOLOLOL

But no, seriously, this is a semantic exercise which proves nothing and is inherently meaningless according to your own parameters.